The Judgement Was Defective & Unconstitutional: Tycoon Ham Petitions Constitutional Court To Dustbin Supreme Court Ruling Favoring DTB

The Judgement Was Defective & Unconstitutional: Tycoon Ham Petitions Constitutional Court To Dustbin Supreme Court Ruling Favoring DTB

By Spy Uganda

Kampla’s tycoon Hamis Kiggundu through his lawyers at Muwema and Company advocates, has petitioned the Constitutional Court, challenging the Supreme Court judgment of June 13, 2023.

According to Ham, the judgment was defective and unconstitutional as it contravenes articles 2, 20, 21, 28, 44, 126, and 128 of the Ugandan Constitution.

Ham in his petition further notes that the Chief Justice committed PERJURY and lied by ruling that on 6th June 2023 when he signed the judgment, stating that: “Since the other members of the Coram are in full agreement with the judgment and orders I have proposed above, judgment and orders are accordingly hereby given in the terms set out there in” yet there was no full agreement or at all, to the lead judgment by the other members of the Coram by the 6th June 2023 as they signed later after 7 days on 13th June 2023 rendering the judgment defective and unconstitutional.

The petition reads that Hon Justice Percy Night Tuhaise made a disclaimer dated 29, June 2023 claiming she had only been instructed to deliver the judgment by the chief justice despite acknowledgment of pending unsettled applications on file.

It is also stated in the petition that; “The act or conduct of issuing a post-judgment statement tilted “Reasons why I declined to half delivery of judgment” which was signed and delivered by Hon Lady Justice Percy Night Tuhaise on the 29th June 2023 amounted to a disclaimer of responsibility casting aspersions on the integrity of the whole judgment making process in civil appeal No 13/2021, rendering the said process a ”nullity and in contravention” of Articles 2, 28, 44, 126 and 128 of the Constitution”.

According to Ham, despite evidence on court records of a direct letter of credit between Ham Enterprises (U) Ltd and Diamond Trust Bank Kenya Limited. Supreme Court on ”actual falsehood” proceeded to rule that the transaction between the two was a syndicated loan contrary to articles: 2, 20, 21, 28, 44, 126, and 128 of the constitution of Uganda that provides for a fair hearing before an independent impartial court of laws.

A syndicated loan is where two or more local or foreign banks mobilize to fund a creditor through a licensed bank and DTB Kenya was never licensed in Uganda nor authorized by Central Bank Kenya.

Ham concluded the petition by noting stating that in determining civil appeal No 13/2021, the Supreme Court did not deliver a judgment of fact as it instead set out to distort the constitutional order and existing laws governing the financial control and regulation in Uganda.

He adds that the said Supreme Court proceedings and judgment are therefore retrogressive and are an affront to the public policy of Uganda as they suborn illicit financial transactions which shall induce a regime of unregulated and unrestrained shadow banking system much to the detriment of the Ugandan economy.

”The general conduct of the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No 13/2021 seriously negated the legal precept of; “Justice must not only be done but must also be seen to be done” THAT the general conduct of the supreme court in the said appeal also militates against the equitable principle of audi alterem parterre which is enshrined in Article 28 of the constitution and protects the inviolable right to a fair hearing,” says Ham adding;

”The effect of the impugned general conduct of the supreme court ensured that justice was not done and also not seen to be done when the court denied the petitioners their constitutional right to be heard in civil applications No 51/2021 and No 15/2023 respectively. The petitioners have been served manifest and permanent injustice in the failure of the judicial duty to hear them in the above-mentioned civil applications which have been left hanging and undetermined since the judgment in a civil appeal 13/2021 from which they arise, was delivered on the 13th June 2023.”

Ham therefore prayed; ”There is a need for this Honourable Court to interpret and declare upon the constitutionality or otherwise of the impugned acts and omissions of the Supreme Court as expressed in the impugned judgment, with a view of upholding the principles of judicial independence, judicial accountability and supremacy of the constitution.”



Related Post

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *